Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls of the European Institute for Climate and Energy;
“The anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases is not completely without impact on the climate. The impact however, is relatively small because of physical laws, and is about 0.5°C for a CO2 doubling with respect to today. Early on – around the mid 1980s – politics empowered a pseudo-science called ‘climate protection’. The political motivations were on one hand “world rescue philosophies”, and, on the other hand, fiscal interests via ecological taxes.”
http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/192-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect
Red-faced global warming policymakers are now back tracking as independent experts increasingly discredit the cornerstone of climatology: the greenhouse gas effect (GHE).
One such whistleblower is Dr. Pierre R Latour who explains adroitly below how his NASA colleague, septuagenarian Dr. James Hansen, concocted a mythical 33°C [91.4°F] atmospheric greenhouse gas global warming phenomenon.
He further explains, “To clarify this enormous intellectual flaw, take boiling point of water is 100°C (true) and freezing point is 32°F (true), subtract 100 – 32 = 68 (correct arithmetic) and declare atmospheric pressure is 68 psia. The declaration is false because a) the difference between C and F has no meaning, b) there is no physics to connect 68 to pressure, psia, and c) atmospheric pressure is actually 14.7 psia.”
Thus we can see that the 33°C greenhouse gas effect that has everybody so upset and is researched ad nausea to death is not an effect, merely an easily explained pair of facts.
“…The political motivations were on one hand “world rescue philosophies”, and, on the other hand, fiscal interests via ecological taxes…
Let me finish that sentence for you
…and taxpayer dollars to parasitical NGOs.
// Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls of the European Institute for Climate and Energy; //
Taking this in reverse order –
The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) is a climate sceptic ginger group in partnership with the Heartland Insititute. They count among their advisors Chris Monckton, Lubos Motl, & Marcel Leroux (deceased).
Klaus-Eckart Puls is listed as “Spokesman” and, from a variety of identically-worded search results, is prone to such over-specific pronouncments as the above & that “99% of Antarctica cooling” and that “Sea Level Rise Has Slowed 34%”. Here’s how he produced that last conclusion. [by playing with someone’s elses’s graph]
And “Meteorologist” — that’s a weatherman, right?
ummm… no.
You do not have to have a degree in meteorology to be a weatherman. But you knew that… right?
And you certainly don’t need more than a high school education to understand linear regressions based on arithmetic means.
Simply put, comparative data from the ten year intervals 1993 – 2003 and 2003 – 2013 show a 34% reduction in the projected sea level rise from the first decade to the second.
In fact, for the year 2003, we can see that the mean is actually higher than previously foretasted based on a comparison between the two intervals. It clearly is not unscrupulous as this actually concedes a higher average sea level for that year and begins the regression at a higher point. This notwithstanding a 34% reduction in rate is evident as calculated through the slope of the mean. So…your point is?
Not to mention that the rise in the sea level has been close to zero in the past hundred years.
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2725/old-map-throws-doubt-on-climate-change-sea-level-claims/
Don’t be bringing observable data to this fight dude…sheesh…
My last remark was just a way of noting that he is not a climate scientist. But you knew that, eh?
For the rest, you might have checked the science blog referenced. Our meteorologist is claiming that “Sea level rise has slowed 34%”. The problem is not the regression calculations but the artful way our meteorologitst has picked part of the scattergram and thereby arranged for a reduced slope. In other words your “concession” is part of the scam.
Had he chosed 2008, his calculations would have shown that sea “level rise has increased”. But that would be like Chris Monckton’s favorite graph of 2010 that showed “a 27% increase in ice extent over the past three years” the ice is recovering.! [The calculations there were also quite the correct.]
The whole exercise if a bit of theatre which has nothing to do with science.
That is my point.
From the science blog — just the text , but they have pretty pictures too —
// You only have to look at the graph below showing sea level rise since 1880 to see that it has accelerated from about 1mm/year at the end of the 19th century to about 3mm/year at present.(from CSIRO) //
&
// If you take a closer look at recent sea level rise you’ll see that it has been very consistent, only deviating from the trend line by about 10mm at any time. //
&
// So if you were unscrupulous, and wanted to try to make it look like sea level rise had decelerated what could you do? You could split the series at a point where sea level was above the trend line and compare trends before and after. this is what Klaus-Eckart Puls did (green line added by me): //
&
// Of course, you could achieve the opposite effect by splitting at a point in time where sea level was below the trend line. //
This nightmare will be over soon enough. One by one the pro-AGW people in government weather agencies are realizing that the theory is almost dead in the water and are basically just hoping that nobody with a massive reputation blows their careers to smithereenss until after they retire (most are near that age).
If you’re expecting any of these clowns to demonstrate integrity, fughedaboudit. Integrity was not in the skill set. Truth be told, nothing much was.
The way this ends is when some non-climate scientist of sufficient clout comes into the ring and tosses out the remaining staggering clowns, convinces the media to stop telling lies, and ten years later everyone tells each other they knew all along.
Yeah right, sure they did.
Incredible desire you have to defend the AGW crap. It doesn’t fly. In case you haven’t noticed it’s 2013 and…. 10 years ago it was… 2003 and 10 years before that, I know this one’s tricky…. it was 1993. How unscrupulously devious to divide a chronological data set in half and compare two even segments. What a bastard, a faux scientist this charlatan must be.
No, the real hoaxters are over at the University of Colorado. The one famous for two studies, the first where it scored in the top ten universities for cocaine use and the other for the remarkably high infection rate of herpes and genital warts (hpv) that was carried by their female student body. All niceties aside, this is where the data were are discussing is compiled and promptly fudged.
The most recent efforts to make the sea level match the projections of the AGW narrative have been through compensating for glacial isostatic variation. They have been adjusting the sea level up ward on top of the … and get this actual sea level data. So they just plus it up. Now the AGW folks are claiming that the ocean beds are, and they actually say this, getting deeper. The oceans are holding more water.
Now the reason for the current glacial isostatic adjustment of the earth’s mantle is the last deglaciation which terminated about 8000 years ago. This has nothing to do with AGW.
It’s all crap. What’s Up With That handled this very topic.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/24/sea-level-rate-of-rise-shown-to-be-partially-a-product-of-adjustments/
So following this thread it would appear that wether or not earth’s temperature is rising, falling or stable would depend very much upon what one takes as the starting point for the period of measurement. Likewise, rate of rise or fall in sea level and change in polar sea ice extent. In other words, as far as anyone can determine, the current state of the planet climate-wise is not significantly different from what it has been for quite some time, and all this despite steadily rising concentrations of CO2 which, according to the theory of AGW (such as it is) should be driving global temperatures inexorably upward.
In addition, it would seem one must take the opinions of someone with a specialty in fruit fly genetics, or an organization headed by a railway engineer/economist who writes soft core porn on the side, or someone who flunked out of divinity school (twice) and ended up with a degree in “government” without even a question while dismissing the opinions of meteorologists with a wave of the hand.
Oh, and I should take more seriously the projections of computer models (I have a computer model that shows that, had I been flying a P-51 Mustang in autumn 1944, I could have shot down half the Luftwaffe — before lunch!) over real world observations.
AGW: an ill-defined theory having no standardized system of measurement and no falsifiable parameters, making no useable predictions. Scientific theory — my @ss.
Thank you Kate; I stopped saving any AGW “stuff” a while ago. I will save this one because occasionally, very occasionally, someone will woefully make an asinine remark about AGW and my “bull roar” or some such stops all conversation.
Those who know me, Family and Friends, usually move to another room. Those who stay provide an interesting evening of sometimes loud discussion. Have not been out yelled or confabulated yet. Usually my dear Wife comes to the rescue of the dilettante expert. Cheers;
This video is great one for your file. Enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EMoU8OOsBs#at=584
The real inconvenient truth is that CAGW never advanced beyond the statis of “shakey hypothesis” and never, will never achieve the robustness of “theory”.
Another inconvenient truth is that tendency to question the expertise of critics/deniers/skeptics of CAGW, while advancing undergraduate geographers, fruitfly geneticists, economists, railway engineers, UN bureaucrats, NGO activists, as “CLIMATE SCIENTISTS”.
Thanks for the video, but how can we trust this guy’s pronouncements if we don’t know his porn output or which divinity schools, if any, he was able to flunk out of? The AGW hysterics demand to know!
// to divide a chronological data set in half and compare //
+
Granted, Nicely symmetrical. But the division itself reduces the statistical support for the conclusion. And the fact [or artefact] that the higher result at 2003 reduces the slope is not changed.
And given his emotive accompaniment to his numbers, and his pseudo-scientific treatment of the numbers themselves, some cynical type might speculate that he wouldn’t have bothered with this exercise if the symmetrical division hadn’t given him the slope he wanted.
In any case, these measurements from the graph that Herr Puls so evenly divided are not meant to give a measure of acceleration. That is a variation within a variation and modelers & such deny that there is enough time to extract that from the variable changes in sea level. [For example, global sea level went down 5mm in one year in 2010, a dip clearly shown in the long-term graphs.]
The spin put upon corrections for GIA really ignores both the complexity and the amazing achievments since recent satellite measurements have been added to the traditional measures. It is even possible to measure the change in the earth’s shape owing to mass depletion from Greenland & Antarctica —
Corrections have been made for the water held in dams throughout the world & they are working on the same for water removed from aquifers.
For further exploration one could canvas Herr Puls’ range of highly specific pronunciamentos, OR the more interesting question you raise regarding the new factors for minor calibrations of ocean expansion that have been made possible. — your relation of GIA, basin volume & sea level. To put it on a bumper sticker, they want to measure mass & volume changes in the ocean. These are the variables related to AGW — melting ice, heating water. The relative rise in sea levels depend on other factors.
They all make this correction – Colorado were just playing catch up.
As for your colorado interlude “crap, herpes, genital warts, cocaine” here’s a link to assure you that not all Coloradans are festering in social diseases [was that supposed to be an argument?]